Village chicken characteristics and their seasonal production situation in Jamma District, South Wollo, Ethiopia

Mengesha Mammo, Tamir Berhan* and Dessie Tadelle**

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia
 * Haramaya University, Ethiopia
** ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

mamomme@yahoo.com
 

Abstract

This study was conducted in four Peasant Associations in Jamma district, with the objectives of assessing village chicken production situation and their characters. A total of 120 households from four PAs were involved in the study. A single-visit and multi-subject type of survey was conducted using structured questionnaires between November and December 2005, which was complemented by one arrival survey in August 2005 aiming at assessing seasonal variation in village chicken production.

The survey work indicated that, the overall average flock size was 5.6±0. 8 per household. Flock size was significantly higher (p<0.05) for rich households than medium and poor households. Average flock size was not significantly (P>0.05) affected by PAs and agro ecologies. Major phenotypic appearance of chicken flock was white (28.9 %) followed by gray (25.9%). The mean of age at first lay, number of clutches per hen per year and number of eggs laid per clutch per hen were 5.05±1.34 months, 5.06±1.65 and 15.39±5.05, respectively. The mean hatchability was 84% per hen per household. The ratio of male to female was around 1:3. The purpose of keeping poultry was mainly for sale (38.11) followed by home consumption (31.56%). Of all classes of chicken, significant (P<0.05) variation between seasons and prices were observed for cockerels, which were 10.5 in winter and 9.0 Birr in summer seasons while season had significant (P<0.05) effect on the body weight of local cockerels and the body weight of cross bred hens was also affected by  agro ecology. For better productivity, changing traditional management would be the first priority.

Keywords: egg productivity, flock size, hatchability, maturity, plumage color, seasonal production variation

Background and justification

The local chicken ecotypes remain predominant in African villages (Kitalyi 1998). Despite the introduction of exotic and crossbred types of chickens deep into rural areas, their productivity even existence is under question. Ethiopia has significantly large population of chicken, estimated as 56.5 millions chickens, out of which 99% are local chickens producing 78,000 metric tones of eggs and 72,300 metric tones of meat per year (ILCA 1993). The annual growth rate in egg and meat output of the country was 1.0 and 2.6% while the average for Sub-Saharan countries being 5.7 and 6.8%, respectively; moreover, body conformation, feather color, and comb type and body size and also the majority of them manifest brooding characters. The per capita egg and meat consumption in Ethiopia was reported to be about 57 eggs and 2.5 kg chicken meat per annum, which is far below international average (ILCA 1993). However, rural poultry contributes more than 90% of poultry products of Ethiopia (Kitalyi 1998).

Ethiopian village chickens have been contributing a lot to increase food production and income in rural communities of Ethiopia (Tadelle 1996). Moreover, poultry is owned individually in a family, and unlike to other animals, decision making for sell is decentralized (Alganesh et al 2003). Despite the low productivity of local birds, smallholder poultry production with unimproved stock and with low input of locally available resources can be the most appropriate production systems. As a matter of fact, improving the village chicken production system in rural Ethiopia will result in increasing opportunities and more equitable distribution of food and income within and among households of rural areas. This would be true through exploiting their fast reproductive rates, ability to be raised even under limited land space, requires small starting capital and their capability to be taken care of by relatively inactive labor force (old, children) in the household.

Objectives

To identify village chicken characteristics and their seasonal production situation

Materials and methods 

Site selection

Jamma district was selected because it is among the areas known to have high potential for poultry production (Livestock resource assessment 2002). The district consists of 21 Peasant Associations (PAs),   which are located in two different agro-ecologies. The two-agro-ecologies were stratified based on annual rainfall and altitude as:

-Moist-II (M₂) having an altitude from 2165 to 2654 m.a.s.l. and annual rainfall ranging from 500 to 3600 mm, representing the highland (Dega).

-Sub-Moist-II (SM₂) having an altitude from 1754 to 2165 m.a.s.l. and annual rainfall ranging from 300 to 1600 mm, representing mid to highland (Woinadega) (EARO 2000).

Peasant Associations were selected based on the potential for poultry production, relatively the larger in household numbers, larger in area coverage and representatives for -the study areas (i.e. Debreguracha and Yedo (PAs) representing Dega whereas Faji and Zerkami representing Woinadega agro ecologies).

Sampling procedure

Because of accessibility and infrastructure problems, purposive sampling method was used, while selecting the four Peasant Associations. The total numbers of households per PA were: 1050, 1188, 2075 and 1050 and out of which the sampled (selected) size of households to be studied were also: 24, 26, 46 and 24 for Debreguracha, Yedo, Faji, and Zerkami, respectively. The allocation of the households was based on the population (household) size of each PA and the households were selected using simple random sampling procedures from each PAs. >From the total randomly sampled households (120), nine farmers from each PA and a total of 36 farmers per a district were selected by purposive sampling methods to assess seasonal variations in poultry production. For this purpose, households who possess more diversified (in sex, age, production and breeds) chickens were selected to assess the production and productivity of village chickens in wet and dry seasons.

The whole households of the district (or Peasant Associations) had been stratified in to 3 wealth ranks by government (district Administration Members 2005) for the ease of developmental interventions, as self sufficient (rich), partially sufficient (medium) and Non- self-sufficient groups (poor). Self-sufficient groups were those farmers who mainly had two oxen (or more) and arable lands. Partially self-sufficient groups were those farmers who had one ox and arable lands. Non-sufficient groups were those farmers who had either no ox or no arable lands.

Then after knowing the shared size of the households per each PA, again proportional numbers of the households were selected by simple random sampling procedure from each 3 wealth rank category (poor, medium and rich with 29, 68 and 23 households, respectively for district). The number of households in different wealth groups for different PAs were  also distributed as follows, Debreguracha (9, 11 and 4), Yedo (5, 13 and 8), Faje (9, 31 and 6) and Zerkami (6, 13 and 5) poor, medium and rich, respectively.

A diagnostic survey with single-visit and multi-subject types was conducted in August 2005, this survey work was used (in rainy season with one arrival) as a complement to the main survey to increase the precision of the study (ILCA 1990), by surveying the village chicken production, while assessing seasonal variation in poultry production followed by main survey work, which took place between November and December 2005 using structured questionnaires.

Data collection

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected on functions and importance of poultry in the socio-economic issues of the community. In addition, information on poultry production and management system (organization, ownership, flock characteristics, flock performance, use pattern of poultry production and management) and other related issues of poultry productions (e.g. relationship between wealth ranks and poultry keeping of the households). Problems prevailing in poultry production in the study area and opportunities for improving poultry production were assessed. The socio-religious roles of poultry were also assessed as well as problem solving assumptions of the households were gathered during the survey work.

Moreover, to quantify seasonal variation in village chicken performance under traditional managements, similar structured questionnaires were used in collecting quantitative and qualitative data in both survey (dry and wet seasons) studies. In addition to these, flock dynamics, mortality, prices, disease conditions, predator severity, poultry house sanitations; feed-supplementation (type and quantity), consumption of poultry and eggs, hatchability and traditional egg preservation methods were assessed. The effect of season was also assessed based on the monitoring of the performance of birds through measuring of body weight and egg weight of both local and exotic breeds once in wet and dry seasons. The body and egg weights were taken once (only one arrival) in wet and dry seasons, however, in both cases, body weight was taken in the morning of the day, before allowing of chicken for feeding.

Statistical analysis

Qualitative and quantitative data sets were analyzed using (SPSS 1996) version 11.5, a computer based statistical program. General Linear Model was fitted to some parameter which was appropriate for analysis. For most factors (qualitative factors) descriptive statistics was used. Standard error of mean (SE) was used while describing mean. Interaction effect on (flock size, egg number and number clutches) of household wealth ranks with agro ecologies was also subjected to (SAS 1999) program.

Results and discussion  

Flock characteristics

Flock size and breed composition

The mean flock size of village chicken per household in the study area is shown in Table 1.

The chicken flock size per household was not significantly (P>0.05) different across study PAs and agro ecologies. The mean flock size in the studied areas was 5.6±0.8 (the flock composition of a mean was about 3 adults 1.3 growers and 1.3 chicks per household)  that ranges from a minimum of one to a maximum 20 chickens per household. The mean value obtained in this study was higher than the value 3.05 reported by Leulseged  (1998).  But lower than 24.2 reported by Maphosa et al (2004) for Tanzania. Resource.Center (2005) reported also that the higher number of eggs per hen could be achieved with fewer stocks, usually 7-20 birds per household and biologically such flock size is sustainable, since inputs for scavenging chicken production are little.

Most respondents (87%) replied that the average number of chicken that they could manage was around 10±1.15 birds per household. The limits to the number of birds kept by the households were associated with feed resources, disease problems, labor shortage and nuisance with neighbors. Similarly Sonaiya and Swan (2004) stated most common flock size of family poultry ranging from 5 to 20 birds seems to be the  limit that can be kept by a family without special inputs in terms of feeding, housing and labor. The study revealed that, higher flock size per household was for Dega (5.66±0.9) than Woinadega (5.54±0.8) agro ecologies. The overall flock sizes in the study area were 4.17±0.7, 1.08±0.3 and 0.2±0.04 for locals, exotics and crossbreds, respectively. The flock size of village chickens was affected by the interaction of agro ecologies and house hold wealth ranks.

Village chicken flock size and breed composition in the wealth rank group of the households is shown in Table 2.

The flock size of the village chicken was significantly (P<0.05) affected by the wealth ranks of the households. The mean flock size of village chicken was significantly (P<0.05) highest (7.51±1.9) for rich household followed by poor (6.0±1.74) and the least for medium (4.83±1.3) wealth rank groups. Although the government^’s program in introducing exotic breeds has been targeting to medium rather than the rich and the poor households, the largest flock size was seen for rich groups. This might be associated with availability of feed resources for the rich household groups and higher off take rate for the poor and medium. This result was not in agreement with the report of Tadelle et al (2003) who indicated that there was no significant variation in number of birds owned by different wealth ranks the households in Ethiopia.  Relatively the poorer also had better average village flock size than medium groups. This might be also due to relatively better managements given to village chicken by poor groups than medium.

The overall poultry population in the studied area was 665 with male to female ratio of 1:3. The ratio of adult (>24 weeks of age) to grower (12-24 weeks of age) to chick (up to 12 weeks of age) population was around 3.1:1.3:1.1 (375 adults, 157 growers and 133 chicks). This adult to grower to chick ratio implied the low off take rate and low replacement stock, probably due to the high mortality of chicks and young chickens. This ratio was higher than reports of Minga et al (1996) who reported a ratio of chicks to growers to adults of 10:5:6 and in agreement with report of Kitalyi (1998) who found high matured chicken than growers and chicks in central highlands of Ethiopia. The over all proportion of local village chicken population to others (exotic and crossbred) was 77%. Respondents from Yedo (PA) had a mean of 2.6 and 0.4 exotics and crossbred chicken, respectively, which were most populated compared to other PAs, whereas those respondents from Debreguracha had 0.3±0.2 and 0.1±0.11 exotics and crossbred village chicken respectively, which was again relatively lowest populated as compared to other PAs. Exotics and crossbred chicken breed compositions were higher in Dega than Wopinadega agro ecologies. This might be due to improved breed distribution program mainly focusing to the more proximate and accessible areas, which is Dega.

The medium wealth group had better mean distribution of exotics and crossbred chickens than the rest; however this group had lower overall mean flock size. The rich wealth group on the other hand had lower exotics and crossbreds than poor and medium wealth groups; however, this group had highest over all mean flock size than the rest groups. The variation of mean of breed composition between wealth ranks might be due to the program of distributing improved breed with the strategy of improving local poultry production particularly for medium wealth ranks rather than other groups. The low number of exotic and crossbred chicken might be also associated with low adaptability to disease conditions, poor feeding and housing. Respondents indicated the poor mating preferences among local cocks towards the exotic hens and the exotic cocks to local hens. They rated the mating preferences as 50.4, 30.2 and 19.4%, good, little-preference and poor, respectively for the preference of exotic cocks towards the local hen and also; 44.6, 29.65 and 25.75% good, little-preferences and poor for local cock to exotics, respectively. However, cocks from different ecotypes may have various types of behaviors for fighting and mating preferences. These preferences might have contributed to low hatchability particularly for eggs laid by exotic and crossbred of chickens.

Phenotypic appearance

The proportion of phenotypic appearance of village chickens is shown in Table 3.

Village chicken had diversified phenotypic appearances across the study PAs. The dominant phenotypic appearance of the village flock was feathered (88.43%) while only (11.57%) naked neck type. Of the feathered phenotypic appearances, the dominant color was white ranging from 27.2 in Faji to 32.2% in Debreguracha followed by gray and black. Gray colored chicken was dominant (30.2%) in Zerkami. 

The variation in proportion of  phenotypic appearances between PAs and agro ecologies might be associated with the preference of people for specific color types, and the ability of birds to adapt to specific areas ( to adapt predation). In addition to this, these phenotypic variations may be due to uncontrolled breeding and the existence of diversified breeds among village chickens.

Some households responded naked-neck type of chicken were distributed by governments in the areas for the purpose of improving the local chicken production, since naked neck type of chicken are believe to be more productive than feathered birds at that time, and that might be the cause for presence as well as slight color variation between studied PAs. The presence of different colored chicken was in agreement with reports of Tadelle and Ogle (2001); Tadelle et al (2003) who reported that the presence of large variation in feather color, comp-type and productivity of village chickens with good adaptations.

A phenotypic appearance of village chicken across agro ecology was also diversified. White color of village chicken was dominant ranging from 27.6 to 30.5% for Woinadega and Dega, respectively. According to the respondents, the overall average phenotypic appearance of village chicken in the study area was primarily 28.9% white followed by 25.9% gray and 23.4% mixed type. The black birds made up 21.8%.

Flock productivity

The mean age at first lay, number of clutches per hen per year and number of eggs per clutch per hen are shown in Table 4.

According to the respondents, the average age at first lay of village chicken was significantly (P<0.05) different across study PAs and agro ecologies. The study revealed that, the highest mean of age at first lay was found for Zerkami (5.8±0.1 months) and lowest for Yedo (5.2±0.1 months). Moreover, Woinadega had higher (5.4±0.2 months) mean of age at first lay than Dega (5.3±0.2 months) with overall mean age at first lay in the study Woreda was 5.35±0.7 months. The variation might be associated with the availability of feed resources for scavenging and supplementation, and breed type. Udo et al (2001) and Tadelle et al (2003) reported average age at first lay of 8 and 6.8 months, respectively. Average number of clutches per hen per year was significantly (P<0.01) different across the study areas. The study revealed that, the overall mean of clutches for the study area was 4.6±0.2 clutches per hen per year.

This might be associated also with breed composition and brooding control practices. Amsalu (2003) reported higher clutch number per year could be found by breaking broodiness as it shortens the period to switch the clutch to every 27 days.  Number clutches per hen per year was affected by interaction effect of household wealth ranks with agro ecologies. Average number of eggs per clutch per hen was significantly (P<0.01) different across the study areas. The highest number of eggs per clutch per hen was found for Zerkami (18.4±0.6) and the lowest for Faji (12.5±0.8). Dega had higher (16.8±0.75) number of eggs per clutch per hen than Woinadega (14.8±0.7). The overall mean was 15.4±0.4 eggs per clutch per hen in the study area. This variation may be due to breed compositions, feed availability and disease problems. The result of this study was lower than Tadelle et al (2003) who reported the average eggs per clutch per hen was 17.7, but higher than the value of 11.8 eggs per clutch per hen reported by Minga et al (1996). The study revealed that, the number of eggs per clutch per hen was affected by interaction of wealth ranks with agro ecologies.

Village chicken production situation

Purpose of keeping poultry

Purpose of keeping poultry in different study areas of the households is shown in Table 5.

The purpose of keeping of poultry by the households was various types across study areas. Respondents dwelling in Zerkami were giving highest priority for both home consumption and selling (44.7 and 46.8%, respectively), but they also gave minimum priority for both religious purposes and unidentified purposes (4.2%). On the other hand, those respondents from Faji (PA) gave minimum (17.4%) emphasis for home consumption; however they gave higher priority for sale (38.9%). The main purpose of keeping poultry was for sale for Woinadega (42.8%) and 32.2% for Dega agro ecologies. The study revealed that, purpose of keeping poultry was mainly for sale (38.1%), followed by for home consumption (31.7%) and no defined (16.3%), at last for religious purposes (13.9%).

Purpose of keeping poultry in different wealth rank groups is shown in Table 6.  

Around 60, 50.0  and 45.0%   of the poor group respondents from Yedo, Zerkami and Faji preferred to selling poultry products in the market. The medium wealth group respondents from Debreguracha and Faji were using their 35 and 33% chicken proportion for consumption and for sale, respectively. On the other hand, those farmers from Yedo (46.4%) gave priority of their chicken for religious purposes. Most of rich groups of respondents from each PA were consuming high (>37.5%) proportion of chicken for home consumption. The study revealed that the overall purpose of keeping poultry by poor group (46.2 %), medium (35.0%) and rich (44.3%) were for sale, religious and home consumption, respectively.

Seasonal variation in village chicken production

Seasonal variation in flock size

Seasonal village chicken flock size variation is shown in Table 7.

Poultry flock size was significantly (P<0.01) higher per household in summer (rainy) (10.9±0.94) than winter (dry) seasons (7.11±0.8). According to farmers responded the main reason for this variation might be due to disease outbreak in the winter months and due to high slaughtering for socio-religious festivals commonly in October of yearly commitments. Moreover, the availability of feed resources like grasses and worms in rainy season may contribute for higher flock size in rainy season But, Leulseged (1998) reported that poultry population was more in winter than summer seasons.

Seasonal price variation

Average prices of eggs, pullets, hens, cocks and cockerels are shown in Table 8.

Significant variation (P<0.05) was seen between seasons and prices of eggs and chicken. The average price of eggs in winter (0.33± 0.01Birr/ egg) was significantly higher than in summer (0.31±0.01Birr/ egg) prices per egg. This is inline with report of Leulseged (1998) who reported that average egg price was different in different seasons.

The overall average price of cocks in summer (14.0±0.6 Birr/ cock) was significantly higher than in winter (12.9±0.5 Birr/ cock) seasons per bird, whereas average prices of cockerels in winter (10.5±0.7 Birr/ cockerel) was significantly higher than (9.0±0.8 Birr/ cockerel)  in winter seasons per bird. The reason why this price fluctuation was most probably due to socio religious commitments in winter season particularly in month of October, which was being young and male dependent (i.e. the male and younger with required feather cover chickens are most expensive once in the study area)

This finding was in agreement with report of Tadelle (1996) and Leulseged (1998) who disclosed that farmers prefer specially colored young cockerels with high market prices of the highest being during the dry season. The main reasons for seasonality of the prices of chickens and eggs were: due to fasting and availability in summer and winter seasons, respectively.

Seasonal variation in body weight

The average body weight for local, crossbred and RIR breeds are shown in Table 9.

Except matured local cock and crossbred hens there was no significance (P>0.05) difference in body weight measurements between two seasons. Average matured (>6 months of age) body weights of 1.1 (n=125), 1.34 (n=130), 1.45 (n=76), 2.05 (n=101), 1.94 (n=37) and 1.97 kg/ bird (n=35) were for local hen, local cock, crossbred hen, crossbred cock, RIR hen, and RIR cock, respectively in summer season. More over, average body weight of 1.05 (n=137), 1.6 (n=121), 1.6 (n=89), 1.78 (n=91), 1.88 (n=43) and 2.1 kg/bird (n=39) were for local hen, local cock, crossbred hen, crossbred cock, RIR hen, and RIR cock, respectively in winter season. Maphosa et al (2004) found that average matured body weights for local chickens were 2.45±0.25 and 1.55±0.26 kg for cock and hen, respectively in rainy seasons.

Except crossbred cocks and RIR hen, the study revealed that, there was a high body weight measurement in winter season to all chicken-classes than wet. This result was higher than: 905, 866 and 821 g per bird for harvest, wet and dry seasons, respectively reported by Leulseged (1998). According to the respondents, the scarcity of feed resource was more in long wet season and this might be the reason for lower body weight in summer than winter seasons. This is inline with the report of Minga et al (1996).

 Egg weight from local, crossbred, and exotics chickens are shown in Table 10.

There was no significant variation in egg weight (from the source of the same breed) was seen between two seasons. The average egg weights of 38.18 (n=107), 50.67 (n=119), and 60 g/ egg (n=83) were for local, crossbred, and exotic (RIR) eggs, respectively in summer season. Again the average egg weight of 38.0 (n=97), 50.27 (n=789), and 63.0 g/ egg (n=76) were for local, crossbred, and exotic eggs respectively in wet.

Except for RIR-egg weight, heavier average eggs weights were measured in winter than winter. Teketel (1986) and Minga et a (1996) reported that the average egg weight was 36 and 41.8 g with a range of 25 to 56 g, respectively. Again AACMC (1984) reported that average local egg weight was around 46 g, which is heavier than this result.

References 

AACMC 1984 Australian Agricultural Consulting and management company. Livestock sub sector review. Annex 3, Australia

Alganesh Tola, Matewos Belisa and Gizaw Kebede 2003 Survey on traditional livestock production system. pp. 141-150. Proceeding 11^th Annual Conference of Ethiopian Society of Animal production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 28-30, 2003

Amsalu Asfawu 2003 Practical poultry Training manual (unpublished). Amhara Region agricultural Research Institute, Kombolcha Poultry Research and Multiplication Center.  

EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization) 2000 Summary of Livestock Research strategies. Animal Science Directorate, EARO. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.73p.

ILCA (International Livestock Center for Africa) 1993 1-35. Annual report program ILCA. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 98p.

Kitalyi A J 1998 Village chicken production systems in rural Africa. House-holds food and gender issues. Animal Production and Health paper 142, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy 81p http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w8989e/w8989e00.htm

Leulseged Yosef 1998 A study on the production system of the indigenous and improved poultry in rural areas of Northern Wollo. M. Sc. Thesis Presented to School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 103p.

Livestock resource assessment 2002 Assessment of Livestock resource potential (unpublished document) in South Wollo Administrative Zone in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia

Maphosa T, Kusina J, Kusina N T,  Makuza S and Sibanda S 2004 A monitoring study comparing production of village chickens between Communal (Nharira) and small-scale commercial (Lancashire) farming areas in Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development.. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/7/maph16048.htm

Minga U M, Katule A M, Yongolo M G S and Mwanjala T 1996 The rural chicken industry in Tanzania: Does it make economic sense? In: Proc. Tanzania Veterinary Association Scientific Conference, Tanzania 16: 25–28
 

Resource Center 2005 Improved management of indigenous chicken. Kenya Agricultural Institute. Kenya.

SAS (Statistical Analysis System) 1999 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA

Sonaiya E B and Swan E S J 2004 Small scale poultry production technical guide. Animal Production and Health Manual 1. FAO of United Nations. Rome Italy 2004. 114p http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5169e/y5169e00.htm

SPSS (Statistical package for social science) 1996 11.5 versions.  SPSS user^’s guide

Tadelle Dessie 1996 Studies of village poultry production system in the central high land of Ethiopia. M. Sc. Thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Science Department of Animal Nutrition Management .72P.

Tadelle Dessie and Ogle B 2001 Village poultry production systems in the central high lands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 33(6): 121-537

Tadelle D, Million T, Alemu Y and Peters K J 2003 Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and performance., http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadea151.htm

Teketel Forsido 1986 Studies on meat production potential of some local strains of chicken in Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, J L Giessen University

Udo H M J, Asgedom A H and Viets T C 2001 Modeling the impact of intervention in village poultry productions. Livestock Community and Environment. Proceeding of the 10^th Conference of the Association of Institution for Tropical Veterinary Medicine Copenhagen, Denmark. Mekele University College, Ethiopia.  http://www.aitvm.kvl.dk/C_poultry/C13Udo.htm

Received 30 August 2007; Accepted 29 April 2008; Published 3 July 2008

Go to top